Orthodox church timeline w/graphic

[Nine_Two]

So what happens when two Orthodox Patriarchs vehemently disagree i.e. the Ecumenical Patriarch (who appeared on 60 Minutes) and the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill. They already got in a heated round over Orthodoxy in a Baltic country. What happens, as it may well, should the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople wish that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine (all three branches) should be subject directly to him as was originally the case in Ukrainian History before the 17th Century and not subject to the Russian Patriarch in Moscow: i.e. that Ukraine should have its very own canonical autocephalous Orthodox Church under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Who wins out in a conflict between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Patriarch of Moscow (which Church still sees itself as the 3rd Rome to a certain extent and is already raising a fuss over some of the EP’s pretensions)? Stating the bishops are all equal is one thing, but in the real world there are real differences and Someone has to be the decider of last resort in Orthodoxy. So who should decide the canonical status of Ukraine’s Orthodox Churches? Constantinople or Moscow? How does Holy Orthodoxy respond?

As we always have, the whole decides, not the one.

 

[Nine_Two]

Well, thanks for knowing so much about Ukrainian Catholics? Political expedience? I take it you haven’t read any portions of the strong religious debate, on religious not political grounds between pro-Union bishops and anti-Union bishops. Read some of the works of the Harvard scholar Ihor Sevcenko on what was actually debated on ecclessial and theological grounds. They are couched in religious language and argue for Catholicism on religious grounds. I’ve studied the debate. They reflect sincere religious convictions as well. If we are going to merely state people like this convert merely because of political expediency we might as well state that in 988 the people converted from paganism to Christianity on political expediency because Prince Volodymyr wanted to marry into the Byzantine Emperor’s family and as a pagan he could not do that, so he had his whole Kingdom Christianized. The is reductionism. More was at stake.

In any event, I can’t see how my points were off thread when I directed them at the thread’s points. Anyway, that’s it. The Orthodox/Catholic dialogue too quickly disintegrates at times into ad hominen and I’m leaving before then, having made my observations.

Thank you. God Bless us all, Orthodox and Catholic.

If it wasn’t political expedience, why did the border between the Ukrainian Catholics and the Ukrainian Orthodox happen to form at the then border of Poland-Lithuania?

 

[Madaglan]

So what happens when two Orthodox Patriarchs vehemently disagree i.e. the Ecumenical Patriarch (who appeared on 60 Minutes) and the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill. They already got in a heated round over Orthodoxy in a Baltic country. What happens, as it may well, should the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople wish that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine (all three branches) should be subject directly to him as was originally the case in Ukrainian History before the 17th Century and not subject to the Russian Patriarch in Moscow: i.e. that Ukraine should have its very own canonical autocephalous Orthodox Church under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Who wins out in a conflict between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Patriarch of Moscow (which Church still sees itself as the 3rd Rome to a certain extent and is already raising a fuss over some of the EP’s pretensions)? Stating the bishops are all equal is one thing, but in the real world there are real differences and Someone has to be the decider of last resort in Orthodoxy. So who should decide the canonical status of Ukraine’s Orthodox Churches? Constantinople or Moscow? How does Holy Orthodoxy respond?

In the real world, things get worked out, and the Holy Spirit is at work.

Last resort has a rather desperate sound to it.

 

[KyivAndrew]

If it wasn’t political expedience, why did the border between the Ukrainian Catholics and the Ukrainian Orthodox happen to form at the then border of Poland-Lithuania?

It didn’t at all originally. Indeed, the strongest centers of Ukrainian Catholicism were in Central Ukraine, not Western Ukraine after the Union of Brest. What happened was that after 1686, the Ecumenical Patriarch, under pressure from the Muslim Turks and Moscow, transferred authority for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to the Moscow Patriarch against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church’s wishes. At this stage, because of the Kyivan Mohyla Academy, Ukrainian Orthodoxy was more intellectually developed than the Church in Russia. As the Russian Autocracy began to expand into Ukraine, along with stamping out the Ukrainian Hetman’s State autonomy and establishing direct rule from Moscow, the Russian Orthodox Church began a 300 year mission of ridding the Ukrainian Orthodox of its own Ukrainian particularisms and of closing all Ukrainian Catholic Churches. In the 19th Century, with most of Ukraine under Russian control the final attack on Ukrainian Catholic parishes on Right-Bank Central Ukraine began and all were outlawed, no matter how many Catholic believers wanted to remain Catholic. This left Galicia and Bukovyna as the only two areas where the Ukrainian Catholic Church was allowed to exist - two areas out of Moscow’s control. The Ukr. Catholic Church didn’t exist any longer in tsarist controlled Ukraine because the tsars put an end to Ukrainian Catholicism on all the territory they conquered, as did the Soviets after them.

In any event, thats my two cents but it is still nice to know that real efforts at Catholic/Orthodox dialogue can be made as Ukrainian Catholic Patriarch Lubomyr explained his desire to see ONE Kyivan Church to which Ukrainian Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox could belong together as he expressed recently in an interview. He knows this is difficult but our own Patriarch is aiming for this reconciliation and unity with the Orthodox branches of the Kyivan Church into one Kyivan Church. Who knows? Christ calls us to unity.

God Bless. I don’t wish to offend any Orthodox. I have Orthodox in my family, y’know…

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother TheosisM,

Besides the Bishop of Rome being able to “intervene”, in theory, in the affairs of other churches besides the Roman Catholic church, it seems as if the views on bishops are the same.

From all my studies on the matter, canonically speaking, the conditions under which the Bishop of Rome can “intervene” in the affairs of other Churches is basically the same as the conditions under which any head bishop (i.e., patriarch, major-archbishop, metropolitan) can intervene in the affairs of the bishops of which he is head. The intervention only occurs on rare occasions and under necessity, not on the whim of the head bishop.

The only difference is the nature of the prerogative to intervene. For all head bishops aside from the bishop of Rome, their prerogative is derived from the ecclesiastical canons. In distinction, the prerogative of the bishop of Rome is derived from both ecclesiastical canons (insofar as his patriarchal prerogative is concerned) and divine establishment (insofar as his papal prerogative is concerned).

On the other hand, the bishop of Rome as Pope is the only head bishop whose prerogatives are constrained not only by ecclesiastical canon, but also by divine law, which has more fearful consequences.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ralphinal]

The Popes were just the heads of one of many local churches. We still hold that the Bishop of Rome would be First Among Equals if he returned to the Church.

It should be noted that the title “pope” has little meaning for us. We use the title in reference to the Patriarch of Alexandria (the original see to use the title, even before Rome), however even he is only second in honour.

I am still trying to figure out what “first among equals” means. It still looks like first. Can someone explain it?

 

[ralphinal]

So what happens when two Orthodox Patriarchs vehemently disagree i.e. the Ecumenical Patriarch (who appeared on 60 Minutes) and the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill. They already got in a heated round over Orthodoxy in a Baltic country. What happens, as it may well, should the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople wish that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine (all three branches) should be subject directly to him as was originally the case in Ukrainian History before the 17th Century and not subject to the Russian Patriarch in Moscow: i.e. that Ukraine should have its very own canonical autocephalous Orthodox Church under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Who wins out in a conflict between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Patriarch of Moscow (which Church still sees itself as the 3rd Rome to a certain extent and is already raising a fuss over some of the EP’s pretensions)? Stating the bishops are all equal is one thing, but in the real world there are real differences and Someone has to be the decider of last resort in Orthodoxy. So who should decide the canonical status of Ukraine’s Orthodox Churches? Constantinople or Moscow? How does Holy Orthodoxy respond?

Good question